I don't think colleges should turn into farm teams for the NFL, and I do not think the players should flat out be paid.

I would rather tweak the rules so players get payments in the form of: scholarships, food / meal plans, tutoring, insurance, and whatever else I'm not thinking of right now.

For star players, if they can make money off their name via autographs, jersey sales, EA's College Football game, whatever, then I think that is ok too.

I think something needs to change, but I don't know if I'm on board with just paying players a salary / hourly wage.

Why not?

I wrote this earlier in the thread:

In regards to the players getting a college education as compensation, how does that affect someone like Devin Hester? He's not intelligent at all, but he did bring in a lot of money to Miami, so how will an 'education' help him? He's not bright enough to graduate. To put it another way, say I wanted to hire you to come clean up my big yard that is full of dogshit. It's a huge yard with a lot of dogs and you'll work very hard shoveling >10hrs a day. I won't pay you any money. But I will teach how to become a super-advanced rocket engineer that will be worth millions!! This education does require a Mensa type intelligence. I'll see you reporting for work tomorrow, right? I mean the education is worth millions of dollars.

Also, how much of an "education" are most of these guys getting if they are spending all their time in the gym, going to meetings, practicing? It's basically a full time (+OT), so how much time is left for this "free education"? Some can manage sure, but as we're seeing more can't.... Look at the SEC graduation rates...

Sure they should be able to get food/shelter. And they should get insurance if injured while practicing/playing. That's a no-brainer. But why aren't they compensated at a market value like 99% of the other jobs. With training, gym, travel to games, meetings and practice, this is a fulltime job. Would you be working your fulltime job without money compensation and for free cafeteria food?

Average cost of attendance at Mizzou for an in-state student is $21,000. The average wage in the state of Missouri is $29,000. Throw in the the extra $3,700 athletes will now be paid. There is more to college than just going to class too. I think a lot of things need to change with the NCAA but the money is pretty fair for the average athlete.

So instead of giving them tuition, why not just give them the money? For more than 1/2 the students, the education is worthless to them anyways. Look at the Hester example above. You're wasting the time of the "student" and the time of the school - time that could be spent on people who do want to learn and part of the problem of tuition rising so fast as more people are enrolled. Considering it's a fulltime job to play sports for the college - in terms of gym time, practice, review of plays, travel - this wasted time becomes more valuable.

How do you know that $29,000 is fair compensation? What is the true value a player provides to a program and the billions of dollars the NCAA makes off of them? Why aren't they allowed to explore their true worth, value, and compensation instead of it being appointed to zero by a few people making millions of dollars off of them?

Tuition isn't fungible compensation. The problem with the "they already get compensated plenty" argument is that it's highly illiquid compensation(GH quote). You can't buy food, clothes, or anything with it.

Do you get paid in tuition at your job or do you receive a direct deposit of cash? Would you take the job shoveling in the previous example?

I don't think colleges should turn into farm teams for the NFL, and I do not think the players should flat out be paid.

I would rather tweak the rules so players get payments in the form of: scholarships, food / meal plans, tutoring, insurance, and whatever else I'm not thinking of right now.

For star players, if they can make money off their name via autographs, jersey sales, EA's College Football game, whatever, then I think that is ok too.

I think something needs to change, but I don't know if I'm on board with just paying players a salary / hourly wage.

Why not?

I wrote this earlier in the thread:

In regards to the players getting a college education as compensation, how does that affect someone like Devin Hester? He's not intelligent at all, but he did bring in a lot of money to Miami, so how will an 'education' help him? He's not bright enough to graduate. To put it another way, say I wanted to hire you to come clean up my big yard that is full of dogshit. It's a huge yard with a lot of dogs and you'll work very hard shoveling >10hrs a day. I won't pay you any money. But I will teach how to become a super-advanced rocket engineer that will be worth millions!! This education does require a Mensa type intelligence. I'll see you reporting for work tomorrow, right? I mean the education is worth millions of dollars.

Also, how much of an "education" are most of these guys getting if they are spending all their time in the gym, going to meetings, practicing? It's basically a full time (+OT), so how much time is left for this "free education"? Some can manage sure, but as we're seeing more can't.... Look at the SEC graduation rates...

Sure they should be able to get food/shelter. And they should get insurance if injured while practicing/playing. That's a no-brainer. But why aren't they compensated at a market value like 99% of the other jobs. With training, gym, travel to games, meetings and practice, this is a fulltime job. Would you be working your fulltime job without money compensation and for free cafeteria food?

Average cost of attendance at Mizzou for an in-state student is $21,000. The average wage in the state of Missouri is $29,000. Throw in the the extra $3,700 athletes will now be paid. There is more to college than just going to class too. I think a lot of things need to change with the NCAA but the money is pretty fair for the average athlete.

So instead of giving them tuition, why not just give them the money? For more than 1/2 the students, the education is worthless to them anyways. Look at the Hester example above. You're wasting the time of the "student" and the time of the school - time that could be spent on people who do want to learn and part of the problem of tuition rising so fast as more people are enrolled. Considering it's a fulltime job to play sports for the college - in terms of gym time, practice, review of plays, travel - this wasted time becomes more valuable.

How do you know that $29,000 is fair compensation? What is the true value a player provides to a program and the billions of dollars the NCAA makes off of them? Why aren't they allowed to explore their true worth, value, and compensation instead of it being appointed to zero by a few people making millions of dollars off of them?

Tuition isn't fungible compensation. The problem with the "they already get compensated plenty" argument is that it's highly illiquid compensation(GH quote). You can't buy food, clothes, or anything with it.

Do you get paid in tuition at your job or do you receive a direct deposit of cash? Would you take the job shoveling in the previous example?

There is more to a college education than just classes. You gain valuable social skills, are exposed to different cultures and ideas, and live on your own for the first time. Stating it is worthless to half of the student athletes is way off base. I think you are severely underestimating the impact of a college education on these individuals and their families for generations. I see it first hand in my job every day.

It's funny how the NFL is so draconian against mentioning any type of gambling, including a ban on networks even talking point spreads, but the NCAA seems to have no problem with the likes of College GameDay having analysts pick on the line at will. Yet due to the pay controversy I would think that someone fixing a college game would be far more likely that it would be in a pro game.

It's funny how the NFL is so draconian against mentioning any type of gambling, including a ban on networks even talking point spreads, but the NCAA seems to have no problem with the likes of College GameDay having analysts pick on the line at will. Yet due to the pay controversy I would think that someone fixing a college game would be far more likely that it would be in a pro game.

Especially if that player has no NFL future.

_________________

emanon wrote:

I think I either need to drink less to become more alert, or more so as not to care.

It's funny how the NFL is so draconian against mentioning any type of gambling, including a ban on networks even talking point spreads, but the NCAA seems to have no problem with the likes of College GameDay having analysts pick on the line at will. Yet due to the pay controversy I would think that someone fixing a college game would be far more likely that it would be in a pro game.

So I debated whether to post this here, or in the "Things You Don't Understand" or the "Stupid Rules" thread, but I'll just post here...

I hate that championship games are on a Monday. I mean, WFT? Why not have them (hoops / football) on a Saturday?

For football, the NFL has long dominated Saturdays for their playoff games. Wouldn't make sense for college football to try to compete against that.

And for basketball, people want to be social on a Saturday. Football is the unique sport that mixes well together with social affairs, but how often does that happen with basketball unless you live in one of the few regions where it's a big deal?

So I debated whether to post this here, or in the "Things You Don't Understand" or the "Stupid Rules" thread, but I'll just post here...

I hate that championship games are on a Monday. I mean, WFT? Why not have them (hoops / football) on a Saturday?

For football, the NFL has long dominated Saturdays for their playoff games. Wouldn't make sense for college football to try to compete against that.

And for basketball, people want to be social on a Saturday. Football is the unique sport that mixes well together with social affairs, but how often does that happen with basketball unless you live in one of the few regions where it's a big deal?

I get that, but Monday's suck. I don't even like MNF. I just want my college football on a Saturday, or around a holiday; I like the semi finals are on New Year's Eve. However, having the National Championship game on a Monday, I don't get. It would be like an all day tailgate fun fest for Saturday. On Monday, meh. I gotta go to work Tuesday. I've been working all day. Kid is crying. I'm tired. Get off my lawn. Gah!

So I debated whether to post this here, or in the "Things You Don't Understand" or the "Stupid Rules" thread, but I'll just post here...

I hate that championship games are on a Monday. I mean, WFT? Why not have them (hoops / football) on a Saturday?

For football, the NFL has long dominated Saturdays for their playoff games. Wouldn't make sense for college football to try to compete against that.

And for basketball, people want to be social on a Saturday. Football is the unique sport that mixes well together with social affairs, but how often does that happen with basketball unless you live in one of the few regions where it's a big deal?

I get that, but Monday's suck. I don't even like MNF. I just want my college football on a Saturday, or around a holiday; I like the semi finals are on New Year's Eve. However, having the National Championship game on a Monday, I don't get. It would be like an all day tailgate fun fest for Saturday. On Monday, meh. I gotta go to work Tuesday. I've been working all day. Kid is crying. I'm tired. Get off my lawn. Gah!

Hey, college football was lucky enough to get Saturdays exclusively to them via federal law during the regular season. Can't blame the NFL for competing when they're allowed to. And I hope you've taken that Tuesday off already just in case.

Gov. Matt Bevin said in an interview Tuesday morning that college athletes should be financially compensated for generating billions of dollars in revenue that make others wealthy, urging Congress and the NCAA to consider changing current student-athlete policies.

Matt Bevin wrote:

The coaches are making millions of dollars a year. Shoe contracts are dictating what happens on our college campuses. Athletics directors and others associated with it that are making exorbitant fees. I don’t begrudge people making a high living. Good for them, and I mean that sincerely. But if that comes at the expense of those that are delivering the athletic prowess on the field, then maybe we should rethink the fact that this is really like the minor leagues for the professional sports associations, and they should be compensated and treated accordingly.

Gov. Matt Bevin said in an interview Tuesday morning that college athletes should be financially compensated for generating billions of dollars in revenue that make others wealthy, urging Congress and the NCAA to consider changing current student-athlete policies.

Matt Bevin wrote:

The coaches are making millions of dollars a year. Shoe contracts are dictating what happens on our college campuses. Athletics directors and others associated with it that are making exorbitant fees. I don’t begrudge people making a high living. Good for them, and I mean that sincerely. But if that comes at the expense of those that are delivering the athletic prowess on the field, then maybe we should rethink the fact that this is really like the minor leagues for the professional sports associations, and they should be compensated and treated accordingly.

All they have to do is stop calling them amateurs. Let them capitalize their time and talents. The schools can continue with athletic scholarships room and board, but if they are only going to sign year long scholarships they shouldn't have ANY control over that player if they want to leave after that contract.